Monday, October 08, 2018

Government and astrology

Government (by which I actually mean The State) is "real" in the same way astrology is "real".

They both exist as a collection of related beliefs. No one can doubt that the beliefs exist and this belief has effects. People truly believe in them and will argue about their "reality". They can point to the horoscopes in the newspaper or online, to the jewelry created in the form of the various astrological signs, to the "laws", and monuments, and giant buildings full of people. But those are just indications that people believe in these things and act on their belief, not that there's any concrete reality beneath the beliefs.

People actually alter their behavior based on their beliefs in these things. People choose who to date based on astrology and choose people to kidnap, rob, and murder based on government. But the beliefs are equally stupid.

In the end, you have nothing but beliefs and people willing to do things based on that belief, but nothing real holding up those beliefs.

Aren't you glad you aren't superstitious like those people?

That being said, sometimes it is necessary, when you are speaking to the believers, to refer to the thing as if it's real in order to point out the flaws in that system of belief. This way you can show that it doesn't actually work as advertised-- although they probably won't listen.

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.


  1. analysis = correct.

    judge deeds, not advertising

  2. I am beginning to understand why it's hard for you to be in a relationship. I'd guess that you need a Darwinian atheist who believes in nothing except herself and has for her religion a belief that we descend from apes. Those girls are probably out there, but they are few and far between.
    My belief is that government is trying to take the place of God and doing a pretty good job of it, especially with Christians. Having said that, I'm already sensing that you think my belief in God is "stupid," as you have said about a belief in astrology. So, I won't reveal more about my beliefs right now.
    That said, I enjoy reading your views on government and individual rights, which I believe are given by God. I'm learning a lot by reading your blog, despite my supposed stupidity.

  3. The analogy is valid but of course the two examples (astrology and government) are different in a vital way: one represents misguided, but voluntarily chosen behavior, while the other represents criminals with guns robbing and micromanaging everyone unfortunate enough to live near them.

  4. @ Anonymous:

    I can't speak for Kent, since A) I don't have his consent; B) He's an
    adult, and C) this is his blog, not mine.

    Speaking for myself though, Darwinian atheist women who believe in
    nothing but themselves are not so rare as you might think. Being a
    Christian as you are, you're not likely to meet many of us, and we
    don't all evangelise about our point of view, or our philosophical

    Continuing to speak for myself, well, I don't think you're stupid for
    believing in a god, or following a religion. I do think that you are
    misinformed and have been sadly misled. I also strongly suspect that
    you have not been very well educated in the application of logic, and
    the scientific method, which is not a belief, but a system of thinking
    and learning, centered on questioning everything and seeking evidence,
    rather than accepting anything on blind faith, or indulging in the
    kind of magical thinking common to many religious persons, and
    required by many religions.

    Speaking for myself, if you want to believe in a god, go right ahead.
    Enjoy it if it makes you happy. I have no issue with that, until you
    start telling me, that I have to listen to your beliefs because your
    mythical being tells you to spread the good word, or until you try to
    apply the laws of your god / religion, which you have CHOSEN to
    follow, to my body, or my life and relationships.

    At that point, we have a problem, because you are in fact at that
    point violating my right to self-ownership, and my free will.

    Kent speaking against religion on HIS blog, which HE pays for is in no
    way a violation of your right to believe whatever you want to believe.

    One last thing. I note that you are making a mistake increasingly
    common to certain branches of Christianity, the mistake of deeming
    science, or the holding of certain hypotheses to explain observed
    phenomena, as a "religion". This is erroneous. For any of us to have
    a belief that we descended from apes as a religion, we would have to
    accept the idea with blind faith, and hold to that belief with no
    evidence, and even in the face of evidence to the contrary.

    Instead, those of us who think that evolution is the way humanity came
    about, study the evidence, and see for ourselves if the data seems to
    fit the hypothesis; always ready to throw out the hypothesis and start
    over, if the data does not fit. We also admit up front that we don't
    know with absolute certainty.

    This annoys many religious people because they use religion as a
    crutch to get through life in an uncertain world, and they don't like
    seeing someone else going about without a crutch the other person has
    no need for.

    Is that what annoys you about atheists? By the way, I'm not rendering
    an opinion either way as far as what you think, or what your
    motivations are. Not my place to. Just engaging in Socratic inquiry;
    and yes, I'm aware of what happened to Socrates for pissing off too
    many people by asking questions which caused them to have to challenge
    their preconceived notions.

    For JdL; I disagree somewhat with your statement. Why? I'll just
    drop this quote here:

    "Religion is a cruelly employed tool used to enslave entire
    populations for the benefit of a select few megalomaniacal
    psychopaths." attribution Unknown



    Fo-su to tomo ni aran koto o...

    1. Thank you for the quote--it's interesting. Religion is a human-made entity; therefore, it's far from perfect. And yes, it is certainly being used (and has been used) to enslave.

      If you will read my writing more carefully, you'll see that I did not claim to be a Christian within what I said, although I do claim to be one. I've done a lot of research into a lot of things and I feel comfortable calling Christianity home.

      Your beliefs are your beliefs and I respect them. I am married to someone who claims to be an atheist--not all Christians "evangelize." I would suggest that you do more research on Darwin. If you're going to place your beliefs in one man's theory, you might want to pick a different man. But you might want to stay with Darwin and the religion of science.

      I have a degree in mathematics and took physics and chemistry; so, I'm familiar with the scientific method. As good as it is, I don't put all my faith in everything that claims to be derived from it. Like most things, science started out with good intentions, but try getting a climate-change believer who blames the proletariat for destroying the planet to look at a study that does not support his or her belief. You'll see some religious fervor. I sure hope that Christians aren't the only ones seeing how science has been made into a religion.

      For KentForLiberty's sake, it's good to know that there are lots of Darwinian atheists. Maybe you and KentForLiberty can exchange e-mails, or you can introduce him to some of your friends.

      Cordially back at ya!

    2. Anon, with due respect, there appear to be several parts of my comment
      which you apparently did not read. My acceptance, for the moment, of
      evolution as a hypothesis, is *not* a "belief", which I have
      previously defined in said post.

      I will thank you to cease and desist making false and inaccurate
      statements about me.

      If I came across evidence, (real evidence, not just the words of
      Bronze Age and Early Iron Age tribesmen and religious leaders) that
      dinosaurs did indeed walk the Earth with man, and the entire world was
      made six thousand years ago, I would throw evolution out the airlock.
      So far, there is not any credible evidence of this. Sure there are
      claims made, but saying something does not make it so.

      Science has not been "made into" a religion. There may be and
      certainly are people who use science as a religion such as the
      aforementioned climate believers. That's not science, and we both
      know it. Science is never settled. If you claim it is, you're not
      doing science.

      Science itself is not in and of itself a religion. They are two very
      separate things with very major differences between them, largely in
      that science does not state anything with certainty, and is willing to
      accommodate new information, by modifying existing hypotheses, or
      generating new ones in the face of conflicting or contradicting
      evidence. Religion does not do this. I am not going to spend more
      time trying to explain the differences here; if you are open-minded
      enough and intellectually honest enough apply logic to things and
      operate from a factually proven premise, I won't need to. If you're
      not, then as appears to be the case, your mind is already made up, and
      it would be pointless. I can lead someone to knowledge but I cannot
      force them to think. Nor would I wish to.

      Darwin is not the only person to have proposed, researched or
      supported evolution as a hypothesis. I am not placing "belief" in any
      person's theory. Also, I am very aware of Darwin's flaws. You
      continuing to bring Darwin into things indicates either a poor
      knowledge of the theory of evolution, or an attempt at a straw man

      It also could indicate a use of one of Alinsky's rules; "Pick the
      target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Cut off the
      support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people
      and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is
      cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule

      My theory at the moment is that this is the primary reason for your
      continued obsession over Kent's love life. That should be his
      business, not yours, unless you happen to be part of his circle of
      friends. Even were that the case, shouldn't you ask his permission
      before bringing up a subject such as this in a public forum?

      For your sake, I hope that you grab that D-ring, and give a good sharp
      tug on the ripcord and open the parachute of your mind. I will also
      thank you to stop concerning yourself with Kent's love life, or mine.
      You haven't earned the privilege of making comments or suggestions to
      either one of us on that issue.

      This discourse is at an end. I'm out of troll food.

      Good day.